(19-11-2015 04:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote: Jason, Jenny raises an excellent point. If the bible, regardless of which testament, is the word of god, that word should give us insight to his character. If this is not in his character, then why would he have allowed such things into his word that make it look like he approves (or certainly scold of he didn't approve)? Just like Elisha and the bears. It never says that god sent them. But if he didn't, then why is it in there in such a way that looks like he did? If he did, then that was a terrible and immoral thing to do. If he is indeed caring, there are better ways to show it. If I can think of better ways, then surely something more powerful that I could as well.

Some would argue that unless it states "Thus says the Lord" it is not a command from God.

That seems a little irresponsible of God to have things like that in his book if they are not intended to be from or by him. Additionally, these types of things seem right up God's alley. Look what he did to David's son and wives in the Book of Samuel. Thus says the Lord is written in that passage several times over--so it's clear the rape of David's wives and death of his baby were from God due to David's sin.

(19-11-2015 04:20 PM)jason_delisle Wrote: I believe that everything is in the bible for a purpose but that does not mean that everything in the bible was condoned by God. Does that make sense? If not I can try to explain.

No, it doesn't actually make any sense. It sounds like typical apologist crap.

(19-11-2015 04:20 PM)jason_delisle Wrote: I believe that everything is in the bible for a purpose but that does not mean that everything in the bible was condoned by God. Does that make sense? If not I can try to explain.

No, it doesn't actually make any sense. It sounds like typical apologist crap.

I believe everything is in there for a purpose as well, I just think those purposes were derived by the humans who wrote and edited the stories. I see nothing that goes beyond what the people of the time could have known and/or thought. There is certainly no indication of any divine purpose in any of it; much of it is pretty barbaric.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce

The following 2 users Like Full Circle's post:2 users Like Full Circle's postjennybee (19-11-2015), Smercury44 (20-11-2015)

(19-11-2015 04:20 PM)jason_delisle Wrote: I believe that everything is in the bible for a purpose but that does not mean that everything in the bible was condoned by God. Does that make sense? If not I can try to explain.

No, it doesn't actually make any sense. It sounds like typical apologist crap.

I am going to make a feeble attempt to explain. Let's say that there was Jew named Bob in the bible and Bob was a prophet in the old testament. Bob says "Nobody shall leave the toilet seat up and allow their wives to fall in. Thus says the Lord" In this case the words are not his own. They are the words of God and Bob is simply sending the message.

Now let's say that Bob was not a prophet but there is a scripture that says. "Bob awoke early the next morning to the horrific screams of his wife, Betty. Betty was upset because Bob forgot to put the toilet seat down. Betty then left Bob and took the kids. Bob then married a woman named Sue. They then had a son named Bobby. Bobby then eventually became the next King of Israel." Bob 7:3-6

Now in this example, if we were to assume that "God would never allow anything to be in the bible if he did not condone it", the fictional scripture would say that leaving the toilet seat up is a sin and it is acceptable to get a divorce as a result. But is that really why it is in the bible? Or is it rather in the bible to historically explain why Bobby is the son of Bob and Sue not the son of Bob and Betty.

I believe this is where I do not agree with some of the interpretations of Christian fundamentalists because they are more inclined to believe the first assumption.